Buds Board Keepers League

Why do we need so many changes? And why is it pretty much the new guys pushing for all these changes? Seems that way at least.

Fix the goalie loophole, maybe add in some emergency replacementsfor during the playoffs for injured players. Why the billion other changes? This leagues been a blast for 6 years now we are gonna redo the entire CBA? Someone pm or text me when this is all over.

Personally I'm pushing for this not to make changes. But to establish the rules of this league into a current complete CBA. Something that we do not have. There have been multiple holes that have become present in the old CBA, or areas open interpretation, or areas that require constant mid-season decision making that have spurred up controversy. I just think that an established league like this, should have up to date posted rules for us to all agree upon and play within.

But I agree with you. Matthew and I are really new to this league, and we probably aren't the best suited to try and get this thing done. We both just saw a lack of people showing initiative to get this thing completed, even though its something we clearly need. If there are veterans who are willing to take this on I don't mind cutting my involvement with the project.

Fraser wroteCOLONPersonally I'm pushing for this not to make changes. But to establish the rules of this league into a current complete CBA. Something that we do not have. There have been multiple holes that have become present in the old CBA, or areas open interpretation, or areas that require constant mid-season decision making that have spurred up controversy. I just think that an established league like this, should have up to date posted rules for us to all agree upon and play within.

But I agree with you. Matthew and I are really new to this league, and we probably aren't the best suited to try and get this thing done. We both just saw a lack of people showing initiative to get this thing completed, even though its something we clearly need. If there are veterans who are willing to take this on I don't mind cutting my involvement with the project.

I think, in general, it's good to have things explicitly stated in a CBA. If the "new" guys, who are all passionate (which is bloody fantastic), are the driving force behind it... game on! It's not like they're suggesting big rule changes (unless i'm missing something).

Good on you guys!

Well, the leagues been fine the last 6 years or 5 years I've been in it.

I get there are a few minor changes to be made but seems like there are a tons of proposals being thrown around.

Fraser, I apologize if I'm coming across as an asshole (it happens from time to time). The only problem loophole we've really had was regarding goalies that I can think of and then there was the emergency injury replacement during the playoffs that my fellow kyle has been pushing for.

Outside that things have run pretty smoothly.

Once again I apologize for very likely coming across as an asshole here, I think you new guys have all been great additions to the league. It just grinds my gears seeing new people come in and wanna change everything.

I'm a little confused that you think there are a lot of proposals being brought to the table by us. Most of the discussion points have been surrounding rules that already exist, such as the anti-tanking one. Already been established in the league announcements thread, but its not present in the old CBA. Would be an obvious inclusion in the new one.

Same with firming punishments for GP. Already established by Mik in the league announcements. Not in the old CBA.

Scoring systems, and changing to an 82 game schedule. Already a major talking point. Most came to the consensus that its something they wanted to see for next season.

We have talked about making official dates, for established events that haven't had official dates before. A possible inclusion in a new CBA.

But I fail to see where this idea that were bringing all these new things to the table? For the most part these are all established points in our league, we are just trying to discuss their implementation into an inclusive CBA.

Just seems you guys are the ones pushing everything. You did after all start the thread which seems to have 13 separate rules or decisions being discussed.

Carry on though as I'll just do w.e the league says when it comes down to it.

All that being said. I do think now is the time to at least discuss change. We tried to bring arguments brought up by others over the course of the season, so we could discuss things like injury replacements and waiver eligibility, before submitting a CBA draft to the CC to edit as they see fit. I think if an updated CBA is something that the league wants, it only makes sense to either approve or put to death the ideas that have caught some momentum for change in past year or so.

Fraser wroteCOLONAll that being said. I do think now is the time to at least discuss change. We tried to bring arguments brought up by others over the course of the season, so we could discuss things like injury replacements and waiver eligibility, before submitting a CBA draft to the CC to edit as they see fit. I think if an updated CBA is something that the league wants, it only makes sense to either approve or put to death the ideas that have caught some momentum for change in past year or so.

Agree.

I'm just an asshole that doesn't even like to discuss change I suppose. Hahaha.

It was a case where we saw nobody else pushing to work through these issues. If its being interpreted that its some sort of power trip by unqualified individuals I'll put this to death.

Fraser wroteCOLONIt was a case where we saw nobody else pushing to work through these issues. If its being interpreted that its some sort of power trip by unqualified individuals I'll put this to death.

Nah man, no power trip. Just keep doing what you're doing. Im out of line here.

Sorry if this was mentioned, but there was also talk of lowering the age limit of waiver eligibility. I believe the talk was 25 years old.

Hasn't been discussed yet but needs to. Would e good to get a lot of opinions on that matter.

No one is unqualified. If anything, what Fraser is doing shows that people still care. After six years that is definitely a good thing.

I think it would be a positive move, more in line with the current NHL eligibility.

The current ruling is something like 180 pro games or a certain amount of years after they sign their first contract.

As an example, I have some guys who will lose waiver eligibility this year: Mikhail Grigorenko, Jordan Weal. One I've recently traded was Teemu Pulkinnen.

These guys are 23 and under, this would give us an extra 2 years which would help with not being able to determine when they play.

Tony wroteCOLONNo one is unqualified. If anything, what Fraser is doing shows that people still care. After six years that is definitely a good thing.

Yep and it's the newer people that are frustrated joining a great league with no up to date CBA and not knowing rules and dates of things.

Looking at the old CBA. Were these past rulings current this past year?

Skaters will need to have played max 120 NHL regular season games AND to have yet to turn 28 as of October 1st to be waiver exempt throughout the starting BBKL season.
Goalies will need to have played max 60 NHL regular season games AND to have yet to turn 28 as of October 1st to be waiver exempt throughout the starting BBKL season.

So the suggestion would be to keep the GP the same and drop from 28 to 25? I could get on board with that.

Fraser wroteCOLONLooking at the old CBA. Were these past rulings current this past year?

Skaters will need to have played max 120 NHL regular season games AND to have yet to turn 28 as of October 1st to be waiver exempt throughout the starting BBKL season.
Goalies will need to have played max 60 NHL regular season games AND to have yet to turn 28 as of October 1st to be waiver exempt throughout the starting BBKL season.

So the suggestion would be to keep the GP the same and drop from 28 to 25? I could get on board with that.

So any player 25 by october 1st would be waiver eligible? Thus, 24 is the last year for waiver exemption. Does this cut it a little close for college guys and goalies? Guys would be losing waiver eligible goalies left and right. A large amount of goalies are not starters by 25.

I would be on board for a waiver eligibility change. I think 25 may be too young. Maybe 26 is better. Just thought the above could be discussed as an issue with the change.

25 is way too young

I would also like to ask a question. Is it correct to assume, that at the beginning of the season, each team can protect at most 23 waiver eligible players (including goalies), and any extra waiver eligible players will need to go through waivers?

Matthew wroteCOLONI would also like to ask a question. Is it correct to assume, that at the beginning of the season, each team can protect at most 23 waiver eligible players (including goalies), and any extra waiver eligible players will need to go through waivers?

You are correct